Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
net/publication/14181519
CITATIONS READS
53 91
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
This was an experiment i led while with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries. the work was conducted at Mutdapilly Research Station, South East Qld. View
project
All content following this page was uploaded by J. B. Gaughan on 02 June 2014.
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on
the World Wide Web at:
http://jas.fass.org/content/75/1/26
www.asas.org
*Department of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Northeast Research and Extension Center,
Concord 68728; †University of Illinois, Orr Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center–Beef
Unit, Bayliss, IL 62314; and ‡Department of Animal Production, University of Queensland,
Gatton College, Gatton, Queensland, Australia 4343
ABSTRACT: Steers were finished in three different spring; P < .05). Feed:gain ratios followed a similar
sets of outside lots: 1 ) pens with overhead shelter on trend among seasons (summer and autumn > winter >
the north side; 2 ) pens south and southeast of a spring P < .05). As a percentage of BW, winter (2.21),
shelterbelt; and 3 ) pens with no shelter or windbreak. spring (2.19), and summer (2.18) DMI were less ( P <
In trials conducted over a 3-yr period with .05) than autumn (2.35) DMI. Wind velocity data
predominantly British and British × Continental indicated that greater air flow tends to be found on
crossbred yearlings, performance improvements due to mounds and less at the feedbunk in pens protected by
shelterbelts. In unprotected, unsheltered pens, the
providing shelter or wind protection in the winter
greatest airflow tends to be at the highest point in the
were not detected; however, in the summer, providing
pen (bunks and mounds). In Nebraska, benefits
wind protection or shelter resulted in decreased ( P < realized from feeding cattle in sheltered or protected
.10) cattle gains. Cattle fed in the unprotected area areas under average or slightly milder than average
had greater ( P < .05) fat thickness in the winter and winter weather conditions may be offset by lower
greater marbling scores in the winter ( P < .05) and performance experienced by cattle fed in those same
autumn ( P < .10) than cattle fed in protected areas. areas in the summer. In addition, fat deposition seems
When averaged across facilities, seasonal effects were to be enhanced in cattle exposed to moderate cold
detected for DMI (autumn > summer > winter > stress.
26
were not found to be significant ( P > .23), facility Wind velocity data were analyzed within wind
differences within season were of interest; therefore, direction using the GLM procedure of SAS (1987).
data were also analyzed within season, which included The statistical model included facility, anemometer
trial, facility, and trial × facility in the statistical location in pens (AB, M, and OB) within facility, and
model. Least squares means are reported. Separation lateral placement (left, center, and right) of anemom-
of means were governed by protected level of sig- eters within facility. Pre-planned wind velocity com-
nificance at the alpha level reported. parisons included AB vs M and AB vs OB within both
Facilityb
Variable OP SP NP SEM Season meanc
Initial wt, kg
Winter 370.4 369.8 370.6 1.4 372.0 ± 3.7f
Spring 333.5 332.9 334.1 1.1 336.7 ± 3.0e
Summer 397.8 397.7 398.4 2.7 397.0 ± 3.1g
Autumn 392.2 394.8 389.8 2.0 393.7 ± 3.7g
Facility mean 374.8 375.2 374.5 2.9
ADG, kg
Winter 1.40 1.44 1.47 .03 1.42 ± .02e
Spring 1.51 1.50 1.47 .02 1.50 ± .02f
Summer 1.37i 1.34i 1.48j .04 1.40 ± .02e
Autumn 1.40 1.42 1.42 .04 1.44 ± .02ef
Facility mean 1.43 1.43 1.46 .02
Daily DMI, kg
Winter 9.68 9.50 9.77 .10 9.68 ± .11f
Spring 9.02 8.88 8.94 .10 8.97 ± .09e
Summer 10.16 10.00 10.38 .15 10.15 ± .10g
Autumn 10.53 10.60 10.48 .18 10.65 ± .11h
Facility mean 9.88 9.78 9.93 .09
DMI, % of BW
Winter 2.22 2.17 2.22 .02 2.21 ± .02e
Spring 2.21 2.18 2.20 .02 2.19 ± .02e
Summer 2.20 2.14 2.21 .03 2.18 ± .02e
Autumn 2.33 2.33 2.33 .04 2.35 ± .02f
Facility mean 2.24 2.21 2.24 .02
Feed/gain
Winter 6.97 6.66 6.77 .13 6.90 ± .12f
Spring 5.99 5.93 6.10 .09 6.01 ± .10e
Summer 7.43 7.52 7.04 .19 7.32 ± .10g
Autumn 7.58 7.52 7.39 .24 7.45 ± .12g
Facility mean 6.99 6.92 6.85 .10
Final wt, kgd
Winter 504.1 505.6 508.5 3.4 506.1 ± 4.2f
Spring 484.4 482.8 481.2 2.6 484.8 ± 3.4e
Summer 526.3k 534.5kl 540.3l 3.4 531.9 ± 3.5g
Autumn 510.5 514.6 510.4 3.7 513.8 ± 4.2f
Facility mean 507.1 510.0 510.3 3.3
aLeast squares means.
bOP = overhead shelter enclosed on the north side; SP = shelterbelt to north and northwest; NP = no
wind protection.
cn = 24 for winter; n = 36 for spring; n = 33 for summer; n = 27 for autumn.
dDetermined from hot carcass weight divided by .62.
e,f,g,hSeasonal means within a column bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
i,jFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .10).
k,lFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
facilities; E vs W end of the SP facility; and N vs S end and be less efficient in feed conversion, which are
of the NP facility. Least squares means were reported. indicators of greater heat load (NRC, 1981), than
cattle fed in the NP facility. Within the spring and
autumn feeding periods, average daily gain, feed
Results and Discussion intake, and feed:gain ratio among pens of steers fed in
the different facilities were similar, possibly indicating
In the feeding study, no differences in performance that steers were exposed to minimal environmental
were found (Table 1 ) among facilities within season, stress during these transitional seasons. Over all
except for the summer period. In the summer, seasons, no effects in performance were found due to
compared to steers fed in the NP facility, steers fed in the main effect of facility; however, when averaged
the OP and SP facilities had lower ( P < .10) daily across facilities, seasonal effects ( P < .05) were found
gains and steers fed in the OP facility had lower ( P < for all performance variables. Steers fed in the spring
.05) final weights. Also, in the summer, cattle fed in gained faster than steers fed in either the winter or
the OP and SP facility tended to have lower intakes summer season.
Seasonal effects were detected for daily DMI grass and the plane of nutrition is low during the last
(autumn > summer > winter > spring). A trend portion of the grazing period. Cattle started in the
similar to that of DMI was found for feed:gain ratio winter could be long yearlings (> 18 mo old) or fall-
(summer and autumn > winter > spring). When DMI born calves born the previous year. Facility effects
was adjusted for BW (DMI as a percentage of BW), would be less likely observed in the winter with the
autumn values were greater than those found in other older cattle. However, exact age of cattle was not
seasons. Properly designed facilities should moderate determined in the present study.
seasonal intake differences associated with climate During the winter (Table 2), steers fed in the NP
changes; however, no season × facility interaction was facility had greater ( P < .05) fat thickness and
found for daily DMI or DMI as a percentage of BW. marbling score than steers fed in the OP and SP
Pusillo et al. (1991) indicated that in the latter stages facilities. Greater quality grade ( P < .05) and yield
of the feeding period, daily DMI for cattle exposed to grade ( P < .10) was also noted in the winter for steers
Midwestern climatic conditions are relatively un- fed in the NP facility compared to steers fed in the SP
affected by the presence or absence of shelter. facility. During the autumn, facility effects were found
The effects of providing overhead shelter for finish- (NP > OP and SP) for marbling score ( P < .10) and
ing cattle in Iowa have generally been found to be quality grade ( P < .05). Steers fed during the summer
positive during summer (Leu et al., 1977) and winter in the NP facility had a greater ( P < .10) quality
(Hoffman and Self, 1970; Leu et al., 1977) seasons, grade than steers fed in the SP facility. When
compared with cattle fed in unsheltered lots with averaged across seasons, facility effects ( P < .05) were
board fences as windbreaks. However, compared with detected for fat thickness (NP > SP) as well as
providing no shelter or wind protection, the benefits marbling score and quality grade (NP > OP and SP).
derived from the use of other forms of wind protection, When averaged across facilities, seasonal effects ( P <
such as fences or a shelterbelt, have not always been .05) were found for fat thickness (winter and spring >
positive. Bond and Laster (1974) found that cattle fed autumn > summer), marbling score (winter > spring
high-roughage diets with access to wind protection and summer; autumn > spring), and quality grade
during winter had lower gains, spent nearly 50% of (winter > spring and summer). Yield grades were the
the time standing near the windbreak, spent 4% less lowest in the summer and differed ( P < .05) from
time at feedbunks, and consumed 4 to 18% less feed. yield grades found in other seasons.
In Wyoming studies, Russell and Hixon (1987) also Lower heat stress (summer) and greater cold stress
reported that gains of calves were slightly less when (winter) seem to be conducive to fat deposition under
windbreaks were provided, and that in severe weather ad libitum feedlot feeding conditions for cattle fed in
calves would feed quickly and return to shelter. When unprotected, unsheltered areas. The animal’s priority
designing facilities that provide winter wind protec- for depositing fat in the winter would seem to be high,
tion, the importance of protecting both feedbunks and and a mechanism for providing body insulation in
cattle should not be overlooked. response to cold stress. Fuller et al. (1974) reported
For cattle that were fed in a relatively unprotected that under cold stress, nutrients are diverted from
environment, Hicks et al. (1990b) reported that synthetic processes to heat production in swine.
intakes, within a given weight group, generally However, Curtis (1981) suggested that during periods
peaked in the late fall and decreased to a low point of cold stress under ad libitum feeding conditions, feed
around February, although a summer decline in needed for both heat production and synthetic
intake was also noted. Intakes as a percentage of BW processes would typically not be limited. Thus, any
were very similar in the summer (2.18), winter resultant subcutaneous fat deposits that increase
(2.21), and spring (2.19) but greater ( P < .10) in the tissue insulation would be dependent on energy intake
autumn (2.35). Although not reported, calculated exceeding maintenance energy requirements.
intakes for steers (Hicks et al., 1990b), as a In other swine studies, increased backfat weight,
percentage of mean BW, tended to be greater in the backfat thickness, and(or) total carcass fat has been
August through October period (2.23) relative to reported in growing and finishing pigs subjected to
other 3-mo periods (2.16 to 2.17). A similar trend was decreasing or low environmental temperatures
found for heifers (Hicks et al., 1990a). In contrast, (Verstegen et al., 1982; Le Dividich et al., 1987);
Pusillo et al. (1991) reported the lowest intakes for however, effects of cold stress on backfat deposition in
cattle started in the fall (November), although exact swine are not always observed (Stahly et al., 1979;
age or initial weight were not reported for respective Rinaldo and Le Dividich, 1991). The diversion of
starting dates. nutrients for synthesis of and deposition of fat,
In the present study, greater DMI, as a percentage primarily external fat for insulation, would be a
of BW, observed in the fall may be due to the fact that mechanism for livestock to prepare for and adapt to
cattle received during August through October tend to cold stress. Altered tissue insulation, including
be older yearlings, and(or) to the fact that cattle have changes in skin and subcutaneous fat, has been noted
compensatory intake ability if they are coming off for cattle exposed to cold stress (Young, 1985).
Facilityb
Variable OP SP NP SEM Season meanc
Fat thickness, cm
Winter 1.38f 1.37f 1.62g .06 1.43 ± .04j
Spring 1.40 1.44 1.50 .04 1.45 ± .03j
Summer 1.09 1.03 1.09 .05 1.07 ± .03h
Autumn 1.29 1.15 1.24 .06 1.23 ± .04i
Facility mean 1.29fg 1.24f 1.35g .03
Marbling scored
Winter 5.54f 5.45f 5.82g .08 5.59 ± .07j
Spring 5.41 5.37 5.38 .07 5.36 ± .05h
Summer 5.35 5.30 5.55 .09 5.39 ± .06hi
Autumn 5.41k 5.41k 5.67l .09 5.54 ± .07ij
Facility mean 5.42f 5.38f 5.60g .05
Quality gradee
Winter 7.20fg 7.13f 7.30g .04 7.20 ± .03i
Spring 7.13 7.12 7.11 .03 7.11 ± .02h
Summer 7.10kl 7.06k 7.18l .04 7.11 ± .02h
Autumn 7.08f 7.06f 7.24g .04 7.16 ± .03hi
Facility mean 7.13f 7.09f 7.21g .02
Yield grade
Winter 2.47kl 2.38k 2.64l .08 2.48 ± .05i
Spring 2.50 2.44 2.57 .06 2.51 ± .04i
Summer 2.18 2.21 2.27 .07 2.21 ± .04h
Autumn 2.44 2.52 2.45 .10 2.48 ± .05i
Facility mean 2.40 2.39 2.47 .04
aLeast squares means.
bOP = overhead shelter enclosed on the north side; SP = shelterbelt to north and northwest; NP = no
wind protection.
cn = 24 for winter; n = 36 for spring; n = 33 for summer; n = 27 for autumn.
d4.5 = average slight; 5.5 = average small.
e6.5 = average select; 7.5 = average choice.
f,gFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
h,i,jSeasonal means within a column bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .05).
k,lFacility means within a row bearing different superscripts differ ( P < .10).
During these trials, winter and spring temperatures ments are taken (Hagen and Skidmore, 1971). In
were 2 to 3C° above normal (30-yr average), whereas general, for windbreak porosities up to 60%, wind
summer and autumn temperatures tended to be velocity reductions of 50% or more can be found at a
slightly below normal; relative humidity followed an leeward distance from the windbreak that is 10 times
opposite pattern (Table 3). Precipitation was lower in the windbreak height. On the basis of wind data from
the winter but higher than normal in the spring and the N and NW, wind velocity was reduced approxi-
autumn. Under these climatic conditions, winter mately 50% (SP vs NP) in the SP facility. However,
performance does not seem to be impaired when cattle benefits of that wind protection did not enhance cattle
were fed in unprotected, unsheltered areas, but performance in the winter and contributed to reduc-
summer gains were decreased when cattle were fed in tions in gain in the summer.
protected areas. Wind velocity was greater ( P < .10) on the mounds
As would be expected, winds from the W, NW, and (vs AB) for the NW wind in both facilities (Figures 3
N were reduced ( P < .10) in velocity in the SP facility and 4 ) and for the W and E wind in the SP facility. In
compared to the NP facility (Figure 2); only the SW the SP facility, W, NW, NE, and E winds were lowest
wind was reduced ( P < .10) in the NP facility as a ( P < .10) near the shelterbelt (AB vs OB). In the NP
result of the shelterbelt. No differences in wind facility, only the SW wind was lower ( P < .10) on the
velocity due to facility were detected for wind from the mounds than AB. Wind velocity was lower ( P < .10)
NE, E, SE, and S, although larger SEM were OB (vs AB) for the S wind in both facilities and for
associated with wind velocity from the SE and S. the E and SW wind in the NP facility. In the SP
Reduction in wind velocity due to a windbreak is facility, the shelterbelt numerically reduced wind
largely dependent on windbreak porosity; however, velocity AB in seven out of eight directions when
relative wind velocity reductions vary depending on compared to wind velocity on the mounds, whereas in
the distance from the windbreak at which measure- the NP facility, fewer differences in wind velocity were
Figure 2. Wind velocities (mean ± SE) north and south of the shelterbelt.
found among locations, although wind velocity tended tended to be areas of greatest wind velocity and areas
to be lowest OB and greatest either on mounds or AB. farthest from the bunks had the least air movement.
In general, greatest wind velocities tended to be on In all directions but the NW, winds were numeri-
the mounds and the lowest wind velocities or least air cally greater on the east end of the SP facility than on
movement tended to be near the bunks, in the feedlot the west end (Figure 5). The N and NE winds were
south of the shelterbelt. In unsheltered, unprotected significantly greater and the NW wind was signifi-
feedlots, the area near the mounds or the bunks cantly less. In general, winds, regardless of direction,
Figure 3. Wind velocities (mean ± SE) south of the shelterbelt in the SP facility. Within a wind direction, bars with
a dagger differ from bar AB (P < .10).
Figure 4. Wind velocities (mean ± SE) north of the shelterbelt in the NP facility. Within a wind direction, bars with
a dagger differ from bar AB (P < .10).
Figure 5. Wind velocity (mean ± SE) at west and east ends of facility south of the shelterbelt (SP).
Figure 6. Wind velocity (mean ± SE) at south and north ends of facility north of the shelterbelt (NP).